‘In the shorter term, postmodernism has caused an impoverishment of much of the academic humanities, both in the quality of the work being done and the civility of the debates. The sciences have been less affected and are relatively healthy. The social sciences are mixed.

I am optimistic, though, for a couple of reasons. One is that pomo was able to entrench itself in the second half of the twentieth century in large part because first-rate intellectuals were mostly dismissive of it and focused on their own projects. But over the last ten years, after pomo’s excesses became blatant, there has been a vigorous counter-attack and pomo is now on the defensive. Another reason for optimism is that, as a species of skepticism, pomo is ultimately empty and becomes boring. Eventually intellectually-alert individuals get tired of the same old lines and move on. It is one thing, as the pomo can do well, to critique other theories and tear them down. But that merely clears the field for the next new and intriguing theory and for the next generation of energetic young intellectuals.

So while the postmodernism has had its generation or two, I think we’re ready for the next new thing – a strong, fresh, and positive approach to the big issues, one that of course takes into account the critical weapons the pomo have used well over the last while’

‘When the hoary old question of nature versus nurture comes around, sides form quickly. And as Leavis once remarked, whenever this is so, we can suspect that the differences have little to do with thinking. Still, the question certainly obsesses thinkers, and crops up in various terminologies and under various rubrics: human essence versus historical accident, intrinsic nature versus social construction, nativism versus empiricism. In the ancient world the nativist Plato held that we come into the world equipped with knowledge obtained in a previous life, while the empiricist Aristotle denied it. In our own time Chomsky has revived the nativist doctrine that our capacity for language is innate, and some ultras have even held that our whole conceptual repertoire is innate. We did not ever have to learn anything. We had only to let loose what we already have.

and:

‘Once we get past the demonizing and the rhetoric, take proper notice of the space between overt psychology and evolutionary rationale for it, and lose any phobia of cultural phenomena, what is left? There are plenty of sensible and plausible observations about human beings in Pinker’s book. But it is not clear that any of them are particularly new: Hobbes and Adam Smith give us more than anybody else. And at least their insights have stood the test of time, unlike that of some more recent work. Consider again the example of media violence. Here it seems that psychologists cannot speak with one voice about its effects. But worse than that, much worse, they cannot even speak with one voice about what psychological studies find about its effects. That is, the meta-studies that Pinker cites flatly disagree with the meta-studies that I mentioned earlier. If this is the state of play, we do well to plead the privilege of skepticism. We also do well too not to jettison other cultural resources too quickly. The depressing thing about “The Blank Slate” is that behind the rhetoric and the salesmanship, I suspect that Pinker knows this as well as anyone else.’

‘They are, in fact, idealists: and idealism is a cast of mind that Conrad questions even more than he questions radicalism. The logical end of radicalism, in his view, is terrorism; but idealism is the mental aberration that allows terrorism to be brought about. Conrad’s originality was to see that a new tyranny could be generated by people who thought that their rebellion against the old tyranny was rational. Thus his writings seem prescient about what was to happen in the Soviet Union. He didn’t predict the Nazi tyranny because he had underestimated the power of the irrational to organise itself into a state. But then, nobody predicted that except its perpetrators; and anyway, mere prediction was not his business. His business was the psychological analysis made possible by an acute historical awareness. Under Western Eyes is valuable not because it came true but because it rang true even at the time, only now we can better hear the deep, sad note.’

By contrast, in conjunction with his Iranian partners, Putin has moved with alacrity and speed to deploy his forces, fill the vacuum, and shore up Assad—in Latakia, the ancestral homeland of the Assad regime, the latest reports are of up to 2,000 Russian troops on the scene, equipped with advanced fighter jets and anti-aircraft systems.This sets up a major showdown in New York on Monday. In Syria, Putin is altering the facts on the ground. Meanwhile, President Obama envisions a grand diplomatic settlement that results in Assad’s departure.If history is any guide, Obama is about to have his clock cleaned, yet again.’

Very real interests are at stake…and such an approach has relatively higher odds of making less peace and stability.

It seems some liberals, classical liberals, conservatarians, neo-conservatives, conservatives, realists, and a various host of practical policy thinkers are not really content to allow the current President and his team to serve American interests when the results are so dismal. They likely disagree with him on the question: What kind of world is this?:

‘In the end, it is critical to understand that the current weaknesses in American foreign policy stem from the President’s adamant reluctance to commit to the use of American force in international relations, whether with Israel, Iran or with ISIS. Starting from that position, the President has to make huge unilateral concessions, and force his allies to do the same thing. Right now his only expertise is leading from behind. The President has to learn to be tough in negotiations with his enemies. Right now, sadly, he has demonstrated that toughness only in his relationships with America’s friends and allies.’

“Although the professional soldier accepts the reality of never-ending and limited conflict, “the liberal tendency,” Huntington explained, is “to absolutize and dichotomize war and peace.” Liberals will most readily support a war if they can turn it into a crusade for advancing humanistic ideals. That is why, he wrote, liberals seek to reduce the defense budget even as they periodically demand an adventurous foreign policy.”

I think many people not accustomed to the culture wars aren’t accustomed to the tactics of many who participate in them; the blind loyalty to causes and one’s own tribe/team, the naked self-interest, the skulduggery, the shouting, the smear tactics etc.

It can have all the appeal of playing tug-of-war in a muddy field, with lots of name-calling.

To top that off, I’ve been at debates of substance, genuine and profound substance, where I’ve walked away with one set of impressions and ideas (even a clear winner in mind) while friends in my party have walked away with a completely different set of impressions and ideas (good to have dinner or go to a bar afterwards).

Harsanyi on his experiences and the broader claim he makes as a result of them:

‘When a group confuses its politics with moral doctrine, it may have trouble comprehending how a decent human could disagree with its positions.‘

Such has been one of the main themes of this blog, really: I don’t have much evidence that human nature has changed very much lately, and find most people desirous of change usually haven’t thought through many of the consequences of holding the ideas, ideals and ideologies driving the change they seek.

Many such doctrines can pose serious threats to all of our liberties, deeply affecting American social, legal, political and educational institutions. Many such doctrines remain impossibly utopian in spirit, not really scalable to large groups of people, while proving to have had drastic consequences in practice.

Here are a few ideas I keep running across where I live:

–History has an endpointwhich can be known and reached. Religious dogma and faulty metaphysical doctrines with no modern appeal are just about consigned to the dustbin of history, don’t you know, while secular progress and the ‘good’ society are just around the corner…right after the next change. Join the community and the modern world.

–Human nature itself is shaped only by cultures and the current culture (i.e. ‘they’) is failing to shape human nature properly (i.e. ‘me’ ‘us’ ‘we’ will shape human nature properly once we control the institutions and political process allowing ‘us’ to do so).

–Once someone begins to hold the right ideals, acting with enough emotional commitment and loyalty to those ideals, all that remains is some action in the real world (buying a Prius, voting for the ‘right’ people etc.) or better yet, some political activism to start shaping human nature in a virtuous manner.

Enemies are not merely wrong, but can easily become morally suspect and ‘bad,’ as Harsanyi points out. The modern social sciences can then became cudgels and tools of ostracism and mischaracterization: ‘You’re a psychopath, a sociopath, you have no heart etc.’

–There is knowledge that will somehow allow for the fair and equal control distribution of economic resources through the political economy, laws etc, and all that’s left is for the ‘right’ people to implement that knowledge.

Am I missing any?

Such seem to be the muddy fields of the moment, so let me know what I’ve got wrong.

This blog ain’t a soapbox nor a lectern, much as I seem to act though it is.

‘The fields of psychology, sociology and anthropology have long attracted liberals, but they became more exclusive after the 1960s, according to Dr. Haidt. “The fight for civil rights and against racism became the sacred cause unifying the left throughout American society, and within the academy,” he said, arguing that this shared morality both “binds and blinds.”

“If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community,” he said. “They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value.” It’s easy for social scientists to observe this process in other communities, like the fundamentalist Christians who embrace “intelligent design” while rejecting Darwinism. But academics can be selective, too, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan found in 1965 when he warned about the rise of unmarried parenthood and welfare dependency among blacks — violating the taboo against criticizing victims of racism.’

Perhaps not too much has changed since 2011, nor 1967, nor….pick your date. What’s right under your nose is often the hardest to see. Sigh.

“We must limit determinism …but not eliminate it as Libertarians mistakenly think necessary.”

Thanks to a reader for pointing this out, and I’d be interested in some reactions:

“Most libertarians have been mind/body dualists who, following René Descartes, explained human freedom by a separate mind substance that somehow manages to act in the physical world. Some, especially Immanuel Kant, believed that our freedom only existed in a transcendental or noumenal world, leaving the physical world to be completely deterministic.“

Over a generation ago, there was an alliance of anti-Western interests working in Damascus, Tehran, and Moscow. Now, it seems, Putin continues to place bombed-out and war-torn barricades between himself and the West, advancing his interests.

And yes, you can trace current U.S. decision-making and its lack in Syria (despite the very difficult choices there) in allowing a good deal of the current chaos. And no, many people in the media and present U.S. policy circles won’t connect the dots between cherished and not-so-cherished political ideals and the practical consequences to U.S. interests.

It’s always someone else’s fault when peace doesn’t show up for dinner…

‘And so it is, strange as it may sound, that the verve of a “conservative” German Chancellor whose refugee policy, as a colleague has put it, appears to originate from Human Rights Watch, whose energy policy resembles that of the early Greens, whose defense policy seems to derive from the peace movement, and whose social policy (minimum wage) is set by the trade unions, is pretty much all that stands between the Russians and their goals. Her and those five guys in Syria’

‘Syria has been a Russian client state since the 1970s. The reason for its original alliance with Soviet Russia is obvious enough. The Arab Socialist Baath Party was a natural ally of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Syria’s take on secularism and socialism isn’t as severe as Soviet Russia’s, but Syria was ideologically much closer to Russia than to, say, Sweden. That was for damn sure.’

‘The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services inspector general has issued a new report on what went wrong with the Obamacare insurance exchanges. Or rather, one thing that went wrong: how the agency mismanaged the contracts so that they experienced significant cost overruns.

You can take this report as a searing indictment of the agency and its contracting personnel. I took something rather different away from reading it:

The architects of the law were incredibly naïve.

Federal contracting rules are crazy.’

================

Avik Roy summed it up nicely:

‘Any serious health reform program—left, right, or center—would involve some disruption of our existing health-coverage arrangements. What makes Obamacare such a deeply flawed piece of work is not that it disrupts our existing arrangements, but that it disrupts those arrangements by forcing people to buy costlier coverage.’

Some people owe others, you see, and it’s not up to you to decide what you owe others in the eyes of this law. Such things have generally been decided for you and will be worked out by all the best and brightest.

There’s always been a bit of the showman about Jeff Koons; the kind of young man who could put on a bow tie and try to give many museum-goers their time/money/aspirations’ worth at the membership desk.

This blog forgives people trying to explain what their art ‘means,’ exactly, but confesses to pleasure in seeing Koons put on the spot under the suspicious eye of an ornery old Robert Hughes.

I don’t fault Koons for finding himself firmly within modernism, searching for universal forms and broader historical context within those confines, but I admit it’s nice to see him held to account for his bullshit, and perhaps the broader, deeper bullshit he shares with many modern and postmodern artists: Pursuing novelty and recognition and thus making art into a business and often commercializing it, aiming for celebrity while offering meta-critiques on celebrity, making the personal and private very public (masturbation into social commentary, sex into meta-critques of religious shame, ‘culture’ and pornography).

Two quotes by Hughes that stood out:

‘Religion is diminished into celebrity..a kind of reverse apotheosis.‘

‘This alienation of the work from the common viewer is actually a form of spiritual vandalism.’

It’s tough to say that art is really about religion (though much clearly is), but rather more about an experience Hughes wants as many people as possible to have, and that such experiences can elevate and expand.

Aside from the above, there’s something that strikes me as not just late 20th century-modern about Koons, but also very American.

As previously posted:

Is street-art, or the use of graffiti & mixed-materials performed illegally out in public (on public and privately owned property) partly due to the success of capital markets?

Many modern artists, from Andy Warhol to Jeff Koons to Damien Hirst are people with some artistic talent and native gifts, but not as much in the way of classical and/or formal training. They may be trying to have a conversation with the old masters, but they are clearly also the products of, and speaking to, ‘modern’ audiences. Much of this has become a world of shallow depth, especially among the less talented. Drawing and drafting can be underdeveloped skills while ‘mixed-media’ presentations, celebrity, marketing, money and fame are all thrown into the same pot.

‘Ronald Bailey isn’t surprised by those who regularly renew warnings of environmental Armageddon. The award winning author and Reason journalist says there’s a simple reason for so much gloom: “doom sells.”

From Peak Oil to the Population Bomb, Bailey goes through a veritable anthology of debunked environmental doomsday prophecies on today’s episode of Federalist Radio.’

You don’t get the products of the Enlightenment without the same old human nature at heart. I fully expect every drop of rain, forest fire and cloud (parts of a dynamic, incredibly complicated system) traced back to the cause of ‘climate change’ on local radio.

It’s almost like a daily affirmation, followed by a reminder of impending, but avoidable doom, tithing, and the good works needed to prevent it [add: catastophe].

The cost/benefit analyses I’ve seen of the ACA are pretty telling; a lot of money being spent to help relatively fewer people:

‘…the law winds up dividing Americans into two groups. One group earns less than the government-approved amount; that group gets subsidies that insulate them from paying the real cost of their health care. The second group earns more than the government-approved amount. That group pays a lot of their own money for health care and then gets socked with major premium increases.’

=============

As I see it, under the progressive umbrella, groups of people (not necessarily individuals) are often claimed to be equal ‘members of the community,’ but some groups can suddenly become more equal than others, depending on the political pressures of the moment.

Unsurprisingly, when unfavorable feedback arrives, or when more political juice is needed, the ideals tend to be dragged out again to keep the levers of justice and/or the voting booth moving.

It would be a shame is if many of the policing strategies generally proven to work, and which generally protect the public safety (esp. the good people in bad neighborhoods), become eroded through too much victim-group agitation and activist political pressures.

‘Monday’s violence also should provide advance warning that the New York City Council’s plan to decriminalize such quality-of-life laws as public drinking and public urination is a recipe for disaster. The decriminalization agenda in New York and nationally is driven by the specious claim that enforcing the law unfairly targets blacks and subjects them to draconian penalties.’

I can imagine healthy disagreement on this, that is to say, which kinds of policies are having which kinds of effects on all groups, not just one’s favored group?

I tend to think that freedom from violence and the protection of life and property ought to come first, which may well mean the kinds of broken-window, little-things-can-be-big-things law enforcement based in a moral virtue and moral authority ignored by many these days.

It’s up for debate.

For the most part, criminals are going to keep criming, and policing will remain pretty dangerous work, so if you’d like fewer stolen phones and car stereos, bums pissing in the street, and general seediness and unease….

============

Brooklyn’s Highline Park has failed to bring about more social mobility, unfortunately. A sad, collective sigh was heaved from many a rooftop garden.

‘And so now we have the promise of a New York that no longer festoons its capitalist mythologies with promises of social mobility but rather a place where rich people can sell things to each other, and sometimes to slightly less rich people, without having to worry about too much else at all.’

Just back from the Capitalist Mythology Luncheon And Card-Party, I can say that that we’ve redrawn our social-mobility compact between hands of poker and bouts of dirty-joke telling and guffawing. We’ve sent it over to Marketing.

Truth be told, a lot of good urban planning, determination, imagination, and commitment went into the Highline, but at the end of the day, it’s a park on some refurbished railroad tracks.

If you wander up there looking for social mobility, you probably need a lot more than a walk in the park.

Here’s one of the guys that helped make it happen, and guess what, this successful project has raised rents and gentrified the area.